Post edited 1:47 am – November 17, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 2:00 am – November 17, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 2:02 am – November 17, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 2:03 am – November 17, 2009 by saintstephen

Dear KenB, You are welcome to this discussion, I appreciate your view and agree with much of what you wrote with one exception. Do not think for one minute that you have no say over Vatican matters. Always remember that at one time every member of the Magistrate of the Church were laity before they were ordained to the Priesthood and also according to the Catechism, we all share in the “common” Priesthood of the Church as we are a “Royal Priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart”. Even Pope Benedict XVI was at one time Jozeph Karl Ratzinger, a lay person before he discerned the Priesthood.

Many laity throughout history of the Church have not only advised the Pope, they have also helped create new Church Doctrine, aided in translating portions of the original Scriptures, attended Church Councils adding to dialog, and are fully encouraged to assist the Church whenever it is prudent and the Spirit moves you to speak or write.

The website http://www.vatican.va will give you contact information as to how to make contact with the Pope and many others in the Vatican, in fact the Pope is active on facebook http://www.pope2you.net/ and has an open account there and welcomes active participation in dialog always. He also has a personal email: benedictxvi@vatican.va Your personal views are important to the formation of all the Sacramento’s, Doctrine and Catechesis.

Please do not hesitate to advise the Vatican when you can. I did advise Pope John Paul II in a matter of my great interest and it was not only responded to in writing, my advise also became a portion of an edict written by JPII not long after he received my letter. Church Canon recommends laity involvement explicitly.

Can. 899 §1. The eucharistic celebration is the action of Christ himself and the Church. In it, Christ the Lord, through the ministry of the priest, offers himself, substantially present under the species of bread and wine, to God the Father and gives himself as spiritual food to the faithful united with his offering.

§2. In the eucharistic gathering the people of God are called together with the bishop or, under his authority, a presbyter presiding and acting in the person of Christ. All the faithful who are present, whether clerics or laity, unite together by participating in their own way according to the diversity of orders and liturgical functions.

Can. 511 In every diocese and to the extent that pastoral circumstances suggest it, a pastoral council is to be constituted which under the authority of the bishop investigates, considers, and proposes practical conclusions about those things which pertain to pastoral works in the diocese.

Can. 512 §1. A pastoral council consists of members of the Christian faithful who are in full communion with the Catholic Church—clerics, members of institutes of consecrated life, and especially laity—who are designated in a manner determined by the diocesan bishop.

§2. The Christian faithful who are designated to a pastoral council are to be selected in such a way that they truly reflect the entire portion of the people of God which constitutes the diocese, with consideration given to the different areas of the diocese, social conditions and professions, and the role which they have in the apostolate whether individually or joined with others.

§3. No one except members of the Christian faithful outstanding in firm faith, good morals, and prudence is to be designated to a pastoral council.

Can. 513 §1. A pastoral council is constituted for a period of time according to the prescripts of the statutes which are issued by the bishop.

§2. When the see is vacant, a pastoral council ceases.

Can. 514 §1. A pastoral council possesses only a consultative vote. It belongs to the diocesan bishop alone to convoke it according to the needs of the apostolate and to preside over it; it also belongs to him alone to make public what has been done in the council.

§2. The pastoral council is to be convoked at least once a year.

Can. 327 Lay members of the Christian faithful are to hold in esteem associations established for the spiritual purposes mentioned in ⇒ can. 298, especially those which propose to animate the temporal order with the Christian spirit and in this way greatly foster an intimate union between faith and life.

Can. 328 Those who preside offer associations of the laity, even those which have been erected by virtue of apostolic privilege, are to take care that their associations cooperate with other associations of the Christian faithful where it is expedient and willingly assist various Christian works, especially those in the same territory.

Can. 329 Moderators of associations of the laity are to take care that the members of the association are duly formed to exercise the apostolate proper to the laity.

During the third meeting of the cardinal members of the Commission on May 28, 1968, they substantially approved a temporary arrangement according to which the study groups already established were organized in a new way: “the systematic organization of the Code,” “general norms,” “the sacred hierarchy,” “institutes of perfection,” “laity,” “physical and moral persons in general,” “marriage,” “sacraments other than marriage,” “the ecclesiastical magisterium,” “the patrimonial law of the Church,” “processes,” “penal law.”

Meanwhile a January 15, 1966 letter of the cardinal president of the Commission to the presidents of the conferences of bishops asked the bishops of the whole Catholic world to express their concerns and advice regarding the law to be drafted and the best way of structuring relationships between the conferences of bishops and the Commission so as to maximize their cooperation for the good of the Church. Furthermore, the bishops were also asked to send to the Secretariat of the Commission the names of canonical experts in their respective regions who in the judgment of the bishops were the most distinguished in terms of canonical expertise; the special competence of these experts was also to be indicated. The consultors and their collaborators could be selected and named from these individuals. Actually, at the very beginning and throughout the working of the Commission, besides its cardinal members the following collaborated in the drafting of the new Code of Canon Law: bishops, priests, religious, laity, experts in canon law, theology, pastoral practice, and civil law from all over the Catholic world. During the whole revision process 105 cardinals, 77

Among the elements which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church we should emphasize especially the following: the doctrine in which the Church is presented as the people of God (cf. dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, chapter 2) and hierarchical authority as service (cf. ibid., chapter 3); the doctrine in which the Church is seen as a communion and which therefore determines the relations which are to exist between the particular churches and the universal Church, and between collegiality and the primacy; likewise the doctrine according to which all the members of the people of God, in the way suited to each of them, participate in the threefold priestly, prophetic and kingly office of Christ, to which doctrine is also linked that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful and particularly of the laity; and finally, the Church’s commitment to ecumenism.

You make a very good point Loretta. I should have said "…While with the new translation, the [English version of the] Novus Ordo will more closely track the original Latin …"

On reading your comment, I thought of how on our local EWTN Radio, when they broadcast daily Mass; they usually use the Novus Ordo. One of the things I like about listening to it is that while they use Novus Ordo, for the common parts of the Mass they retain a fair amount of the original Latin. On reading your comment it occurs to me that they use for example (and please pardon my sorry Latin, "et cum sprititu tuo", and "no soy dignus tu entres sub tecum meam, sed tanto dic verbum, et sanabitur anima mea"

Moreover I now recall that in fact as per Vatican II, the Novus Order is in Latin, and special permission was given to use the local vernaclar when the bishop felt it was necessary.

I looked into this a bit more and find that Vatican II documents specifically and clearly call on the priest, to make sure that the laity know enough Latin to say or chant the common prayers and common parts of the mass.

And so, thanks Loretta, for the reminder!

Post edited 3:30 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:07 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:09 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 4:22 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen

ormom2 said:

I read through this entire thread and I see that you have been accused of lying. This sounds to me like it might be another lie. Can you prove what you say? I’m sure you must have the correspondence.

Dear Ormom2, When one is accused of lying we must draw on the wisdom of Pope Gregory the Great who said, “If your own conscience does not convict you, whose will?” My conscience has not convicted me nor has Michael.

My accuser has fled and worse, is not able to convict me so I will have to assume he is guilty of what he has accused me of which is typical behavior of those that are in sin. In case you did not know, another name for the devil is: “the accuser”. Michael has accused me although he offers no solid evidence which supports his claim in fact has no authoritative right to accuse me of any sin as that right is reserved to the Priesthood in the Sacrament of Confession. Further, in an accusation, one must prove complicity with sin and there is also no response from Michael on that effort.

There is a distinct and delicate difference between identifying what is called “a sin” or “a lie” and calling someone a “sinner” or a “liar”. Sin can easily be identified as any act against the Commands. Sinning or lying can only be determined by “culpability” which is defined as such:

Main Entry: cul·pa·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈkəl-pə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English coupable, from Anglo-French cupable, culpable, from Latin culpabilis, from culpare to blame, from culpa guilt
Date: 14th century

1 archaic : guilty, criminal
2 : meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful

The process of determining “culpable” acts against the Commands can only be established [according to Catholic Doctrine] in the Sacrament of Confession in discernment with an ordained Priest.

Michael refuses to identify his standing in the Church with regard to official capacity and so I have no doubt that he is not a Priest and even if he were, he would most definitely be in violation of the Seal of the Confessional by using a forum as a medium of solicitation of culpability. Either authoritatively or not, either way Michael is in error through his accusations and causes his own merit of culpability for that error.

This is the reason I referred you to the Sacrament of Reconciliation with a Priest regarding the "Catholic Condom" thread and your question about the use of contraceptives as the Doctrine of the Church identifies the use of contraceptives as a sin although your "culpability" for that sin needs to be discerned between you and a Priest in the Confessional as neither I nor Michael have authoritative ordination to help you in that aspect, we can only try to convince you that it is wrong to use contraceptives in any event and to open yourself to conception through the use of the "approved" timing of relations with your husband combined with abstinence at other times which in essence, this is what NFP accomplishes with no chemical additives which are in fact harmful to your health both physically and Spiritually.

My letter to Pope John Paul II is on archive at the Vatican. You need to write to the Archivist to obtain a copy of the correspondance. My letter to him was not duplicated for my own file. If you wish to give me your email address I can photocopy the letter I received from Pope John Paul II.

Post edited 5:36 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 5:57 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 6:38 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 6:43 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 6:45 pm – November 20, 2009 by saintstephen

ormom2 said:

In the meantime, please feel free to transcribe or paraphrase JPII’s edict and the letter you received here in this forum. I’m probably not the only one who is interested.

Thanks.

Dear Ormom2, From the letter I received from Pope John Paul II I quote: ” His Holiness Pope John Paul II is pleased to acknowledge the kind greetings and gift [regarding the use of psychology within the context of the Sacraments]. He very much appreciates the sentiments which prompted this thoughtful gesture. His Holiness invokes an abundance of joy in Christ the Prince of Peace, and he cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing”.

The Secretariat of State is Monsignor Gabriele Caccia who corresponds for the Pope and has sent me several letters of appreciation for my intentions. The Archivist at the Vatican is Archbishop Raffaele FARINA

Here is the letter from Pope John Paul II which incorporated my letter of concern into a teaching document which I will quote in part that which he used define the loss of the sense of sin according to psychology:

“Another reason for the disappearance of the sense of sin in contemporary society is to be found in the errors made in evaluating certain findings of the human sciences. Thus on the basis of certain affirmations of psychology, concern to avoid creating feelings of guilt or to place limits on freedom leads to a refusal ever to admit any shortcoming. Through an undue extrapolation of the criteria of the science of sociology, it finally happens-as I have already said-that all failings are blamed upon society, and the individual is declared innocent of them. Again, a certain cultural anthropology so emphasizes the undeniable environmental and historical conditioning and influences which act upon man, that it reduces his responsibility to the point of not acknowledging his ability to perform truly human acts and therefore his ability to sin.”

The entire text can be read here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…..ia_en.html

Thank you for the info but the following web address is invalid. Please try again.

The entire text can be read here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…..ia_en.html

saintstephen said:

Here is the letter from Pope John Paul II which incorporated my letter of concern into a teaching document which I will quote in part that which he used define the loss of the sense of sin according to psychology:
“Another reason for the disappearance of the sense of sin in contemporary society is to be found in the errors made in evaluating certain findings of the human sciences. Thus on the basis of certain affirmations of psychology, concern to avoid creating feelings of guilt or to place limits on freedom leads to a refusal ever to admit any shortcoming. Through an undue extrapolation of the criteria of the science of sociology, it finally happens-as I have already said-that all failings are blamed upon society, and the individual is declared innocent of them. Again, a certain cultural anthropology so emphasizes the undeniable environmental and historical conditioning and influences which act upon man, that it reduces his responsibility to the point of not acknowledging his ability to perform truly human acts and therefore his ability to sin.”

end quote.

I read Misericordia Dei and it does not contain the above text nor does it say anything about psychology or a loss of a "sense of sin".

You wouldn't be trying to misdirect me would you?

OK saintstephen. I'll play. But first tell me if I am going to find the following quote of JPII (from your post of Nov 20 @ 11:31 am) in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia or are you going to direct me to yet another document after that?

quote:

[Here is the letter from Pope John Paul II which incorporated my letter of concern into a teaching document which I will quote in part that which he used define the loss of the sense of sin according to psychology:]

“Another reason for the disappearance of the sense of sin in contemporary society is to be found in the errors made in evaluating certain findings of the human sciences. Thus on the basis of certain affirmations of psychology, concern to avoid creating feelings of guilt or to place limits on freedom leads to a refusal ever to admit any shortcoming. Through an undue extrapolation of the criteria of the science of sociology, it finally happens-as I have already said-that all failings are blamed upon society, and the individual is declared innocent of them. Again, a certain cultural anthropology so emphasizes the undeniable environmental and historical conditioning and influences which act upon man, that it reduces his responsibility to the point of not acknowledging his ability to perform truly human acts and therefore his ability to sin.”
The entire text can be read here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat…..ia

end quote.

saintstephen also said just above:

As I previously mentioned I am not aware of your agility with web search so I thought you would see this on your own cognizance. If you have any difficulty finding the text let me know again.

end quote.

FYI, my websearch skills are quite good. But it's pretty hard to find the document you are apparently referencing NOW when you didn't give me the name or date the first time. I am not a mind-reader.

saintstephen,
You did not answer my question posed to you today at 1:27 pm.

… tell me if I am going to find the following quote of JPII (from your post of Nov 20 @ 11:31 am) in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia or are you going to direct me to yet another document after that?

A yes or no answer is all I am asking for.

OK, I did find the quote in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia.

as for your statement:
Here is the letter from Pope John Paul II which incorporated my letter of concern into a teaching document which I will quote in part that which he used define the loss of the sense of sin according to psychology:

I will leave the question of whether this is truth or wishful thinking unanswered. I'm too tired to pursue it.

Post edited 4:37 pm – November 24, 2009 by Michael

There are two ways to ascertain truth: faith and reason.

Faith is a way to knowledge based on our belief in the word of another.
Reason is used to determine truth based on the use of our senses and the application of inductive or deductive methods.

Staintstephen appeal is to “faith,” asking that we believe his statements on his word alone. That he is satisfied in his own mind as to their veracity is nothing on which one can place a value, except him. However, based on his past ability to present true statements, one may develop an understanding about whether his accounts may be accepted on faith.

The question for anyone wishing to accept saintstephen’s account on faith is, “Is the source trustworthy?” Has he always spoken truthfully?

My position on the question is well known as is the evidence that accepting him at word is contraindicated. Simply put, he has lied in the past in an attempt to bolster his standing, and he continues to allow those lies to go uncorrected.

However, we may also use reason to assist a determination of veracity. Is it more or less likely that a person (saintstephen) influenced the writings of one of the greater minds (JPII) of the last half of the last century, when:

…that person believes that Reformation Protestants are Arian Heretics (in Return of the Arians)…
…he believes that he performed “sacramental” anointing of the sick in Viet Nam as a non-priest (in How to win the war on terror easily by faith)…
…he cannot differentiate between “birth control” and “regulated birth” when discussing NFP (all the while claiming to be a “credentialed” NFP instructor) (in Catholic Condom?)…
…he does not understand the difference between “valid” and “licit” regarding the Orthodox or other schismatic elements (various, including Arians and Clericalism)…
…he protests, despite all facts to the contrary, that the mass will be translated into English directly from ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek…
…he understands that the “happy fault” is the presence of heretics in the world, rather than Original Sin being the felix culpa (in Thank God for the Heretics)…
…he holds (in The unity of Church and State) that St. Basil developed a doctrine (”Document on the Unity of Church and State” ), accepted “for 1000 years [sic],” which gave the pope explicit authority over all laws that were passed…
…he proposes that the “Immaculate Conception” applies to both Christ and Mary (in Grace or free will: which overcomes?)…
…he defends Socialism as a good despite the fact that Leo XIII condemned it as an “unjust evil” (in The Poor and the Needy)…
…he shows an inability to differentiate between “intrinsic evil” and matters of “prudential judgment” as well as absolute sin and the principle of double-effect (various, including Caritas in Veritate and How to win the war on terror easily by faith)

…finally (not as an end to the catalog of his errors, only to this particular list), his received letter has all of the marks of a form letter (similar examples can be found across image archives on the Net) thanking one for prayers and a token gift, to which Saintstephen has appended his own explanation for why letter was offered.

It should also be noted that the juxtaposition of psychology and sin was memetic* from (at least) the late 70s through the late 80s. From the pope’s writing, to changes in the DSM III-R, to Steve Taylor’s Jung and the Restless, to the “Oprah-fication” of US litigation – religion, psychology, law, and culture were trying to assess the limits to one’s culpability for bad behavior. It would not be surprising to learn that along with Saintstephen’s alleged letter, JPII received numerous other notes on this selfsame topic. Even lacking these, however, the pope had already addressed this as a point of concern two years prior to the release of Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, during his Angelus Message on March 14, 1982. I think it more likely that the pope was responding to his own thoughts on the subject rather than those of an exogenous source.

So, did saintstephen write a letter to the pope on the subject? Maybe. Is it likely that it had any influence what-so-ever on the pope’s writing? No. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

In Christ,
Michael

*This is not an espousal of Dawkins’ full set of theories on the “meme.” I simply couldn’t come up with a better word to describe the multi-disciplinary confluence of thought which is so well encapsulated in that concept.